In today’s Wall Street Journal, there is an op-ed by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey about giving the states the ability to propose constitutional amendments.

For nearly a hundred years, federal power has expanded at the expense of the states—to a point where the even the wages and hours of state employees are subject to federal control. Basic health and safety regulations that were long exercised by states under their “police power” are now dominated by Washington.

The courts have similarly distorted the Constitution by inventing new constitutional rights and failing to limit governmental power as provided for in the document. The aggrandizement of judicial power has been a particularly vexing challenge, since it is inherently incapable of correction through the normal political channels.

There is a way to deter further constitutional mischief from Congress and the federal courts, and restore some semblance of the proper federal-state balance. That is to give to states—and through them the people—a greater role in the constitutional amendment process.

The idea is simple, and is already being mooted in conservative legal circles. Today, only Congress can propose constitutional amendments—and Congress of course has little interest in proposing limits on its own power. Since the mid-19th century, no amendment has actually limited federal authority.

But what if a number of states, acting together, also could propose amendments? That has the potential to reinvigorate the states as a check on federal power. It could also return states to a more central policy-making role.

via David Rivkin and Lee Casey: The States Can Check Washington’s Power – WSJ.com.

While the authors have a good idea and a great point, they completely leave out what happened “nearly a hundred years” ago that allowed federal power to expand. Several things happened, but one thing in particular happened that if it had not happened would given the authors what they are asking for and would have prevented the massive expansion of the federal government. In 1913, the 17th amendment was ratified. That amendment changed Senators from being elected by state legislatures to being elected by the people via the popular vote.

The original point of the Senate was to represent state interests and to keep the Federal government from infringing on states rights. Once that barrier was removed, there was no longer a check on the federal powers. You get what we have now.

Prior to the 17th amendment, states could do exactly what the article is proposing. States could propose amendments via their state’s senators, who were accountable to the state legislators. Now, senators aren’t accountable to state legislators, so all they care about is the popular vote of the people, which is easily manipulated.

Come to think about it, do you think Senators could be as corrupt as they are if they were accountable to state legislators? Could corporations buy off US Senators at the expense of their citizens if they new that the state legislators could kick them out of office? While I’m sure there would still be corruption, I don’t think you would have it on the scale that we do now. I also don’t think you would necessarily have these career politicians and the rotating door between government and lobbying.

As time goes on, the great intellect of our founders avails itself more an more. They put controls in place knowing what would happen without those controls. Unfortunately, we allowed Woodrow Wilson, who was a “progressive” to undermine so much of what the founders put in place. Under Wilson, we got the 17th amendment, ending state rights. We got the federal reserve act, which allows the federal government to spend by printing money, robs the middle class and poor through inflation, and creates boom bust cycles. We got the progressive income tax, which punishes productivity and instigates class warfare. The list of Wilson’s destructive acts could go on with drug laws, antiwar suppression, etc.

If we ever want to take the country back towards more liberty, states without a doubt need to start reasserting themselves. It does seem to be happening underneath the surface. There is a growing 10th amendment movement. There are even discussions on some websites and TVs shows about secession. While I don’t see secession ever happening with everyone being programmed that the south was evil for seceded, I can see states voiding federal laws if the people get loud enough. Ultimately, it comes down to people rising up against these federal laws. The first chance at this will be this enslaving health care bill. The people need to get extremely loud about it and tell their state legislators to ignore the federal law. If states ignored the law, as some have ignored the drug laws, they can in effect void the laws.

Maybe it will happen. More likely it won’t. One can only hope that states reassert themselves. If they do, we have a fighting chance at re-establishing our country. If not, Rome will continue to burn until it is no longer.

Wow, stumbled across this blog post this morning on Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis. It’s obvious we are becoming a society dominated by the state. You cannot have government employees making twice as much as the private sector. The incentive becomes working for the government, and not building our economy from the private sector, the sector that actually produces something. Also, with that comes the incentive to grow the state and to defend that state at all costs. When the state comes calling for the highly paid government workers to put down any civil unrest with the general population, the government employees will no doubt try to earn their pay. Anyway, here is a letter to Mish about the absurdity of his salary.

Hello Mish.

I read your article about the salaries of government workers compared with the private sector. I am a police officer. I won’t say where, let’s just say it’s one of the most expensive cities.

I am 29 years old and I make about $130k a year with overtime. Most of the officers make this and some even make $185k a year. A few supervisors in Internal Affairs have made of $200k along with detective sergeants.

To be honest, I think our salaries are totally out of touch with not only the private sector, but with America. It’s absolutely ridiculous. When I became a police officer we were all making way below what private sector employees made. I took the job knowing I will never be rich but knowing I will have a stable job with benefits.

Little did I know my union would secure very good contracts at the expense of pillaging the public. This cannot go on. I have studied and read Robert Prechter’s Conquer The Crash book and how he (and you also) say we will have a deflationary collapse. I agree totally.

I’m just paying off debt while the going is good and have put most of my money in gold (at $800 an ounce). I’ll probably sell that gold soon because it’s getting popular in the media and on the radio. So yes, I just wanted to let you know that these govt/federal/state jobs are ridiculous. I know because I have one. 90% of the workers sit around and work for about 2 hours throughout the day and get paid 6 figure salaries. They have full benefits and pensions, 6 week vacation plans, and sick days galore.

It’s gotten to the point where the private sector cannot compete because these senators keep bringing home the pork for these bloated corporations with unions. The small business man can never compete. This is socialism at its worst that has crept into America over the past quarter century.

via Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis: Police Officer Responds To “Six-Figure Federal Salary Gravy Train” Post.

There are only a few ways that all this absurdity is going to end. All of them are bad. Time to prepare for TEOTWAWKI.

Last night I’m watching John Stossel’s new show on Fox Business. His topic was health care. As usual, Stossel was right on blaming health insurance (third party payer) for the rising prices. Of course, the socialists in the audience and in some of the on the street interviews were having none of it. What was to blame? PROFITS! These idiots think that profits drive up the costs. I even debated a socialist on Facebook who said under socialism goods and services would be the cheapest they can be, because there would be no profit. By definition, he thinks removing profit lowers price. His exact words were, “Profit wouldn’t even be considered in a socialist state, so drugs would automatically be at their lowest possible price.”

It’s silly to think that removing profit makes things cheaper. Price is a function of supply and demand, not profit. Socialism always generates more demand while dwindling supply, so there is no reason to think that not having profits would lower price. That is a simple economic fact. The other hazard of removing profit though is lack of innovation. This is where removing profit is deadly.

The biggest profits are generated with the introduction of a new innovation. The innovator has first dibs on the market. They can charge the most to recoup their investment costs. After investment costs are recouped, they generate tons of profit. I know that sounds horrible in the eyes of many socialists, but what happens next is competitors see the huge profits. They then rush in to capture some of the profits for themselves. By jumping on the profit bandwagon, they bring the goods and services to more people. How do they differentiate themselves in order to get a piece of the profits? They either innovate, making the product or service even better, they seek efficiencies, which lowers costs, or they undercut their competitors, seeking less profits in hopes of taking some of the market. This whole process drives down the cost through innovation, efficiencies, and out right price wars.

This competition always drives profit margins down. Anyone who gets in on the early stage of a new technology can tell you “enjoy it while it lasts.” Once the profit margins are driven down so far, you end up with the companies who can deliver the products or services with the best quality and efficiency.

Meanwhile, the innovators are back at it seeking the massive profits that come from new products and services. This is what leads to our ever improving livelihood.

So what does this mean for health care? If we remove the boot of the government, we can have this same process in health care. It does happen inspite of the government now, but there is no doubt that it is hampered and slowed. For instance, moving a drug through the FDA is estimated to cost close to $1 billion dollars and takes 15 years. How many drugs are there that are needed, but can’t produce the profits necessary to overcome the costs imposed by the FDA? How many people die without those drugs?

If you remove profits, you remove innovation. If you remove innovation, people die. New drugs, treatments and cures are not developed.  If you remove profit, you remove competition. It’s competition that brings products and services at ever cheaper prices to the masses. If people can’t get the products and services, people die. While all these socialists scream, “No profits in health care!”, they should be screaming “Let people die, let people die!”

Watch Stossel’s Health Care show here:

http://www.therightscoop.com/watch-%e2%80%98stossel%e2%80%99-from-fox-business-%e2%80%93-december-17-2009/

I keep hearing politicians and pundits saying the US has to be at the forefront of the green revolution. This is the new internet revolution they say, and it will create tons of jobs in the future. That got me thinking about whether this is the case.

To start, what is economic growth, and why does it benefit society? Real economic growth is increased production of society as a whole (unfortunately our GDP focuses on spending). Increased production means that there are more goods and services for the society to consume and to trade with other nations. That is increased wealth.

Now, the internet revolution and the technology revolution drove up productivity, which means you can produce more with less. That is a pretty simple idea, and it’s easy to see how it increased wealth for us as a nation. Also, being the leader in these revolutions helped us get a head start. With these revolutions, even if  you weren’t the leader, you still benefited immensely from them.

So, the question is how is the Green Revolution like the technology/internet revolution? Does it increase productivity? It is hard to see how. Having energy produced by the sun instead of coal doesn’t increase productivity. If it was cheaper, maybe you could say the savings would be reinvested, and that would eventually lead to increased productivity. Unfortunately, it isn’t cheaper, which is why it hasn’t taken place freely, and it requires government force and subsidies.

Think about it like this. Let’s say as a nation, you have $100 in wealth. You need electricity for luxury and commerce.  Now, say it costs $10/kwh when power is produced by coal (I know nothing about electricity, so please don’t laugh). You would be able to get 10kwhs for you $100. Now, let’s say with green energy it costs $20/kwh. I don’t know the ratio, but I know it’s more expensive. With green energy, you can only get 5kwhs for society’s $100. Now, how does that make your society richer? Why are we all racing to be the leaders of the revolution that makes you less wealthy?

If green technology makes you less wealthy, how do you benefit as a society from the “Green Revolution”? The only way I can think of is you are the leader, and you steal the wealth of other nations in a zero sum game. Other countries buy the technology from your country, which would give you that income from that export. Meanwhile, that nation pays out the money for the technology, and then pays out for the increased cost of the power. This sounds like a huge wealth transfer.

As you can see, there is nothing revolutionary with the “Green Revolution”. It is no where close to the internet revolution and the technology revolutions. Those revolutions didn’t need government force to come into existence. They came to be because they drove up productivity, drove down costs, and increased our standard of living. They actually increased our wealth. The green revolution is the exact opposite. It requires government force, increases cost, and decreases our standard of living. Keep this in mind the next time you hear our politicians talking about the US needing to be at the forefront of this revolution. No worth while revolution requires government forcing it upon you.

Here’s a sliver of good news on the health care front.

Senate Democrats on Monday evening dropped a plan to expand Medicare, winning the support of moderates and the reluctant acquiescence of liberals, in another major step toward building enough support to pass a health-care overhaul.

The idea of letting people ages 55 to 64 buy into Medicare, announced just last week, had threatened to explode the Democrats’ hopes of getting a bill through the Senate when Sen. Joseph Lieberman came out against it.

via Democrats Drop Plan to Expand Medicare – WSJ.com.

While I don’t believe this prevents the government from create a disastrous government health care program, it is still good news. The problem now is the debate has already been framed, and it’s been framed by socialists. The debate is between health care reform and the status quo, and you know the status quo just means you hate people. The problem is government cannot reform the private sector. If the government was not involved in health care, reform would not be needed. Resources would be properly allocated, which would mean they would be allocated where they are needed the most at the least cost.

All this talk about health care reform by socialist pigs makes me sick. The only reform we need to fix health care is government reform. It needs to be reformed back into a limited government that protects liberty. That is all that needs done to fix most of our societal ills. The rest can be figured out by free people.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to blog much over the past few days. I spent a lot of time this weekend just browsing around the web looking at survival skills that you would need in the absolute worse case scenario of an economic collapse. This is referred to as TEOTWAWKI, the end of the world as we know it.

While I’ve been looking into guns for a while now, I’ve finally settled on the Ruger SR9, and I plan on picking one up as soon as Christmas is over. Protection is at the top of the list for survival skills. Hurricane Katrina highlighted how quickly society can deteriorate.

In addition, I did some research on solar panels and wind turbines. It would be good to know how to get off the grid if you needed an energy source. It was actually pretty fascinating reading how you can buy materials off ebay or Amazon and build your own solar panels. Power is a must in a TEOTWAWKI scenario.

While I  was reading up on this stuff, I came across a very cool blog, Survivalblog.com, a site dedicated to survival skills. There is a ton of good information about all kinds of survival skills; including guns, power creation, and even home based business. I then saw the guy who started the site wrote a book, Patriots: A Novel of Survival in the Coming Collapse. I hopped on over to Amazon to check it out, and it had 505 reviews. Wow, I figured this must be a great read, so I headed out to the local bookstore and picked it up.

So far, I’ve only read the first two chapters, but it does not take long at all to pull you in (probably about 2 pages tops). The first chapter is about how the collapse starts, and let’s just say, it’s an ominous chapter in regards to our current economy. The government spends way too much money, the Fed prints too much money, foreign governments begin dumping our treasuries, and the house of cards begins to come down. Bank runs take place, which results in the Fed printing money for the FDIC to dish out to the depositors. All this does is make inflation worse. As you can imagine, unemployment sky rockets in no time at all, and chaos erupts in the larger cities.

The main characters are a group of people who met in college and had a plan for such an event. They formed a group that would come together in such an event, and each member developed specific survival skills, such as handling gun shot wounds. They bought  a 40 acre retreat in Idaho, and they are all making their way there to setup their “retreat”.

That’s about as far as I got. It’s an awesome read, and really makes you think about how unprepared we are as a society. We have no where near the survival skills that our grandparents had during the Great Depression. Needless to say, my wife thinks I’m a lunatic for even thinking something like that could happen, which gets back to how most of society is. We are like sheep in this cage that our government has built. A huge part of the population can’t even take care of themselves with all this abundance, so how would they take care of themselves in a real economic collapse.

Any way, it really got my noodle cooking and thinking that while it’s fun to comment on the idiocy of our government and how they are going to destroy the country, ultimately, you need to be prepared for it. It doesn’t do you or your family any good to stand around as Rome burns saying, “See, I predicted that on my blog.” It’s time to start thinking about TEOTWAWKI and learning some of the survival skills that would be necessary to survive. It’s always the crazy SOB that people go to when excrement hits the fan. I might as well get a little crazy.

I can’t remember how I found this video, but if you have the time, it’s a much watch. You want to know why we are heading for disaster? It’s because the government is filled with David Epsteins, when we need more Peter Schiffs. Hopefully, Schiff will defeat Dodd next year, and we’ll at least have one. Add Rand Paul into the equation, and we are heading into the right direction.

Another great find thanks to The Daily Paul

Bob Murphy has a article on The American Conservative basically outlining how he sees our currency being destroyed and possibly ushering in the Amero. While the entire article is pretty scary, the part about the current bank reserves really popped out at me.

Monetary Catastrophe

Since the start of the present financial crisis, the Federal Reserve has implemented extraordinary programs to rescue large institutions from the horrible investments they made during the bubble years. Because of these programs, the Fed’s balance sheet more than doubled from September 2008 to the end of the year, as Bernanke acquired more than a trillion dollars in new holdings in just a few months.

If Bernanke has been so aggressive in creating new money, why haven’t prices skyrocketed at the grocery store? The answer is that banks have chosen to let their reserves with the Fed grow well above the legal minimum. In other words, banks have the legal ability to make new loans to customers, but for various reasons they are choosing not to do so. This chart from the Federal Reserve shows these “excess reserves” in their historical context.

U.S. depository institutions have typically lent out their excess reserves in order to earn interest from their customers. Yet currently the banks are sitting on some $850 billion in excess reserves, because (a) the Fed began paying interest on reserves in October 2008, and (b) the economic outlook is so uncertain that financial institutions wish to remain extremely liquid.

The chart explains why Faber and others are warning about massive price inflation. If and when the banks begin lending out their excess reserves, they will have the legal ability to create up to $8.5 trillion in new money. To understand how significant that number is, consider that right now the monetary aggregate M1—which includes physical currency, traveler’s checks, checking accounts, and other very liquid assets—is a mere $1.7 trillion.

What does all this mean? Quite simply, it means that if Bernanke sits back and does nothing more, he has already injected enough reserves into the financial system to quintuple the money supply held by the public. Even if Bernanke does the politically difficult thing, jacking up interest rates and sucking out half of the excess reserves, there would still be enough slack in the system to triple the money supply.

via The American Conservative » Killing the Currency.

If the currency doubled over night and the goods and services of the country did not grow, prices would quickly double as well.  While this is a drastic example, it will not work much different if it happened over a longer period of time. It just wouldn’t be as obvious. The problem here as Bob points out is even if Bernanke manages to pull out half the reserves, you’d have the money supply possibly tripling in a short period of time. Obviously, our goods and services would not triple in a short period of time, so you would have inflation that no living American has ever experienced.

What happens in situations like that? Well, look at the Argentina.

It never ceases to amaze me the arrogance we have been programmed to believe. America is a great country, but it cannot defy history just because it’s America. I’ve heard countless pundits just over the past couple weeks pooh, pooh all the “crazy talk” about the economy by saying “We’re Americans. We’ll figure our way out of this.” Why do we believe being American has anything to do with our odds? If we do the same things that were done historically, we will get the same results. It’s as simple as that. This very arrogance is even manifest in the history of decline civilizations. Do you think Rome didn’t believe they were special and could keep going as they were? How about the Soviet Union? We spent all the money in the 80s to bankrupt the Soviet Union, because Reagan knew that was the best and easiest way to destroy it. Here we are 20 years later following the same path of destruction that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Are we that stupid and arrogant to think because we are Americans, it will be different?

Found this on Hot Air

I remember when the media couldn’t imagine any comedian being able to make fun of Obama, because he was just too cool. Stewart has done an awesome job.